MR. SERJEANT PIGOTTsaid, he rose: to call attention to the Laws and Constitution of Jersey. The subject probably had little interest for that House, but it was of momentous interest to the inhabitant of Jersey, and of some importance to persons living in this country who visited that island. The Supreme Court in Jersey was presided over by a bailliff, who was a legal gentleman appointed and partly paid by the Crown, but the business was really transacted by twelve persons, called jurats, who attended at their own pleasure, and who were wholly uneducated for the duties they were called upon to perform. With that court the great portion of the; residents of St. Heliers, the principal; town, were much dissatisfied. A Commission was issued in 1859 to inquire into the constitution of the court, and they had made a Report which brought home to that 1523 court every charge that had been alleged against it. He would give an illustration of the injustice that was committed. A resident of England, who had gone over to Jersey, was arrested there, and required to pay over some trust funds which he had in his possession. He was arrested on mesne process, and he lay in prison two years before he could obtain a decision that his arrest was illegal. If he had paid the money—winch he could not do, for the gum was large—the Court of Chancery in this country would have made him pay it over again when he came to England. The Report also stated that there was an instance of a case which had been before the court seventeen years, and was not yet concluded. It also stated, that if a lord of a manor desired to take a proceeding for trespass, he could not do so without joining every one of his tenants, though he might have fifty, in the suit. That being the state of things, the only question was, by whom was the reform to be effected? As the local legislature of Jersey had not done anything, it only remained for the Imperial Parliament to pass an Act for the purpose. There could be no doubt of the power of the Imperial Parliament to pass such an Act; and as there was a necessity for it, he trusted the right hon. Gentleman would hold out some prospect of a reform of the constitution of the court.
§ SIR GEORGE GREYSir, before answering the hon. and learned Gentleman's question I am anxious to take this opportunity, of which the strict form of the House might otherwise have deprived me, to say a few words with reference to the subject which has been under discussion for the last two or three hours. I think that the office which hold and the means of information it places at my disposal render it a duty incumbent on me, which I have great satisfaction in performing, to bear my testimony to the admirable conduct of that great body of the working classes in a large portion of Lancashire and in some part of Cheshire in enduring that distress which they have long been suffering, are still suffering, and, I fear, will be called upon for some time longer to suffer. I think they have shown not only great patience and fortitude in enduring the distress which has pressed so severely upon them, but also the greatest good sense and the best judgment in appreciating the causes of their calamity. And, knowing well its causes, they have exhibited forbearance, wisdom, and right feeling in 1524 abstaining from urging upon the Government or Parliament that remedy which might have occurred to them as being likely to alleviate their suffering—namely, a departure from that line of strict neutrality which the Government, with the entire concurrence of Parliament, and, I believe, of the country generally, have observed with respect to the unhappy conflict between the Northern and Southern States of America. Their conduct does them infinite credit, and must tend to increase our sympathy for their trying position. I think the discussion which has taken place to-night is likely to be attended with the most beneficial results. At least, it has had this advantage, that it has enabled my right hon. Friend the President of the Poor Law Board to satisfy this House, as I believe he will also satisfy the country, that he and those associated with him in superintending the working of the Poor Law are doing all in their power to render its administration in these distressed districts as efficient as possible, and to carry it out in a spirit suited to the exigency. But it has done more, for I think it has completely removed the misconceptions that have existed as to the motives which induced my hon. Friend the Member for North Lancashire—whose absence am sure we all regret—and others who act with him, in bringing this subject under the notice of the House. It was assumed for a moment by some that those Gentlemen intended to make an appeal on the part of Lancashire for some special relief from the Government. That intention has been disclaimed by every hon. Member connected with the distressed districts who has addressed us. The whole tenour of the discussion has been most creditable to those who originated it, as well as to every speaker representing a constituency affected by this severe visitation. It has shown that in Lancashire there not only exists that heartfelt sympathy between all sections of the community which is the best guarantee for a cordial union of different classes, but also that spirit of self-denial and dependence on their own resources which reflects the greatest honour on those who display it. I trust that what has passed this evening, besides proving that of which, perhaps, a proof was hardly wanted—namely, that the suffering of these districts excites our warmest commiseration—will show that the mode in which the relief is to be administered will, without encouraging fictitious distress, insure substantial aid to 1525 those who, from no fault of their own, are enduring the most trying misfortune.
With regard to the questions of the hon. and learned Member for Reading respecting reforms in the laws of Jersey, no doubt there are great anomalies connected with them, but I think the same reasons which induced Parliament last year to abstain from passing a Bill dealing with the subject, will induce it now to abstain from pledging itself to any particular reforms, unless it is satisfactorily shown that the same cannot be effected by the action of the States of Jersey. From communications I have recently received I am led to believe that steps are being taken to effect the reforms that are needed, and in the mean time I do not think it is incumbent upon this House to interfere.
§ MR. HADFIELDsaid, he would remind the right hon. Gentleman that there had been two Royal Commissions—one as far back as sixteen years ago. The result of the inquiries showed that it was impossible to obtain justice under existing circumstances in Jersey, property consequently nearly lost its value, and persons charged with crimes were left untried for long periods. Nothing, however, had been done in consequence, and he had no hopes of anything being done by the States of Jersey from what had been stated by the right hon. Gentleman.
§ MR. VINCENT SCULLYfeared they were going back to the old bad habit of jumping from one subject to another on Friday nights. There were sixteen different questions on the paper that night upon the question of going into Committee of Supply, and four others in Committee. He thought it would be better when one hare was started to follow it up until it escaped or was killed. He intended to speak only upon three of the questions that had been mooted that evening. The first was with respect to grand jury reform in Ireland, respecting which the Chief Secretary had said nothing at all, notwithstanding the hon. Member for Waterford had expressed his conviction that he would receive a satisfactory and straightforward reply, He hoped the question would again be put on Monday; and if it were not satisfactorily replied to, that it would be asked again on Tuesday. Then, a question had been asked with respect to the Royal Court of Jersey. He had inquired into the subject with great interest, and before he entered Parliament he had the audacity to publish a pamphlet—he believed it had long been 1526 out of print—in which the matter was discussed. He thought the Court required very great reform, and he believed its reform had been neglected on account of the proximity of the island to France. With regard to the distress in Lancashire, he was glad to hear that the Government mot it with such sympathy and such a disposition to do what could be done for its relief; and he only wished that in the case of the equal, if not greater distress, in Ireland the same amount of sympathy had been displayed. He would also express a further wish that the Irish had the present Home Secretary for England as Chief Secretary for Ireland, and that the English had the present Chief Secretary for Ireland for their Home Secretary.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Main Question put, and agreed to.